From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423045AbcFHPf7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:35:59 -0400 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:55184 "EHLO relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422801AbcFHPfp (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:35:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] watchdog: add watchdog pretimeout framework To: Wolfram Sang , Guenter Roeck References: <1465321127-19522-1-git-send-email-vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com> <20160608075619.GF1521@katana> CC: Wim Van Sebroeck , Robin Gong , , From: Vladimir Zapolskiy Message-ID: <57583B4E.1080905@mentor.com> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:35:42 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160608075619.GF1521@katana> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.76] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Wolfram, On 08.06.2016 10:56, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> Changes from v2 to v3: > > This series was odd to review. I am used to that we build stuff on top > of each other to strive for the best technical solution. I didn't expect > that you like all of my changes, but at least some of them were obviously > correct. But since even those were ignored, it really feels like a step > backwards and thus, the reviewing time a bit wasted :( > > Stuff like 64-bit support and the softdog timer (so people can actually > test the framework) is completely missing, too. Why not adding those? > They are easy patches. > I don't object or ignore your work, I'm sorry if this series makes you feel sad, I'll do all my best for you in v4. I'm sincerely happy that I found one more independent user of the feature, and I appreciate your done work and review comments, even downloading, applying and adjusting the changes took your time, and because I'm pretty sure you don't have much spare time I value it. Quite many times when I sent long non-trivial series in the past they were either deterrent for review and plainly ignored or expectedly caused too many review comments at once, that's why here in the cover letter I emphasized : >> In comparison to v1 and v2 this version does not have quite many >> important features, because now the goal is to initiate technical >> review of the simplest possible core change, the fat tail is put >> aside at the moment. I hope I managed to collect enough review comments (if Guenter adds a note to your/my comments to v3 4/6, that would be perfect), and I'll add your new changes and my cut-off changes to v4 pile. With best wishes, Vladimir